Instructions:
Please respond to the submission template below by replying with your answers.
Name: Midas Whale
Wallet Address or ENS: MidasWhale.eth
Tally Profile URL: Tally | midaswhale.eth
What area are you most interested in contributing to? choose up to two tags:
Public Goods funding
IRL Arbitrum community gatherings
Please share your stance on overall goals for the DAO:
eg — how aggressive should we be in liquidity mining, what is the goal of the DAO?
I believe in taking a balanced approach that deeply resonates with Ethereum’s ideals. If I were to become a delegate for the DAO, my focus would be on nurturing sustainable growth through thoughtful liquidity mining strategies. I’m passionate about fostering decentralization, security, and encouraging community-driven innovation. My main goal is to play a part in empowering the ecosystem and maintaining its long-term success and stability
Please share your stance on issues that were raised previously, in other communities, as described below:
Sample Voting Issue 1:
Issue Overview 110
Uniswap planned to use Flipside to attract new users to Uniswap through bounties. Although the program outline and funding was fine, the proposal was contentious because it gave Flipside crypto too much control over allocating UNI to bounties and oversight of the entire program.
For instance, Flipside had 3/7 seats on the allocation committee and 1/3 seats on the Oversight committee. There was also concern since none of the other analytics service providers were involved in the proposal.
This proposal flew under the radar but at the 11th hour got very heated. Large votes from university clubs supported the proposal since they would get a seat on the allocation committee. However, Dune and Leshner spoke up about the issue because of the centralization of power and favor of one service provider.
Prompts to Answer:
How would you vote?
For
Against
What amendments would you make to the proposal if any?
How would you approach the tradeoff between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done?
I would vote against the proposal in its current form, as it seems to grant Flipside Crypto excessive control over allocating UNI to bounties and overseeing the entire program. This situation contradicts Ethereum’s core values of decentralization and inclusivity.
To address these concerns, I would suggest the following amendments to the proposal:
Revise the allocation committee structure to ensure fair representation from various stakeholders, including other analytics service providers. This could involve reducing Flipside’s seats and allocating them to representatives from other organizations.
Introduce a more balanced oversight committee, which includes members from different analytics service providers, ensuring that no single organization has disproportionate influence.
In terms of striking a balance between centralization of authority and the ability to get things done, I believe it’s crucial to maintain a collaborative environment. By involving a diverse group of stakeholders in decision-making, we can ensure that various perspectives are considered while still maintaining efficiency in execution. This approach allows us to benefit from collective wisdom without compromising on agility and responsiveness.
Sample Voting Issue 2:
Issue Overview:
Overview Link 1 386
Overview Link 2 47
FEI RARI Hack Reimbursement: In April 2022 Rari was hacked for 80M, a vote was passed to reimburse those affected. Then in May 2022 another vote to refund the Rari hacked was brought forward this time it was not passed.
Prompts to Answer:
Outside the flipping of the vote, how would you choose to handle this situation?
i.e should parties be reimbursed for an exploit or not? (Please choose one of the below options and then elaborate upon your reasoning)
Full Reimbursement
No Reimbursement
Split Reimbursement
Please elaborate on what instances you believe it is right to refund and which are not.
In this situation, I would choose Split Reimbursement. It’s important to acknowledge the loss suffered by the affected parties while also considering the DAO’s responsibility and the potential moral hazard that full reimbursement might create.
My reasoning for choosing Split Reimbursement is based on the following principles:
Shared responsibility: Both the protocol developers and the users should share responsibility in the event of an exploit. The developers should strive to create a secure environment, and users must acknowledge the inherent risks of participating in the ecosystem.
Encouraging vigilance: Partial reimbursement can help maintain a sense of accountability among users and developers, incentivizing them to stay vigilant and contribute to the security and stability of the ecosystem.
Financial sustainability: A split reimbursement approach considers the DAO’s long-term financial health and the need to allocate resources judiciously.
I believe reimbursement decisions should be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the severity of the exploit, the extent of the damage, and the role of the affected parties. Instances where reimbursement may be appropriate could include those where the DAO or protocol developers have a clear responsibility for the security flaw, and the affected users have acted in good faith. In contrast, reimbursement might not be suitable when users have knowingly engaged in risky behavior or when reimbursing would pose a significant threat to the financial sustainability of the DAO
Languages I speak and write: English, smol
Disclosure of Conflict(s) of Interest:
Diversity of opinions is critical to making progress and determining the future direction of the
Arbitrum ecosystem. We recognize and celebrate the fact that delegates will have diverse views and we both encourage and anticipate good-faith debates in the governance process. That being said, it’s critical that all featured delegates are operating with Arbitrum’s best interest in mind, so please affirm that you don’t have any conflicts of interest that would prevent you from using your best judgement to operate in the best interests of advancing the Arbitrum ecosystem.
I do not have any conflicts of interest, on the contrary I believe my interests are very much aligned with Arbitrum and Ethereum.